Keith Devens .com

So, you've not COMPLETELY given up the hope that the US will be vicorious, have you?

Huh? Not at all, why?

This article conflates the administration's justification for war-- which was sold to the public-- with "the mission in Iraq." The article represents an attempt to retreat back to firmer ground now that many of the pre-war claims have been debunked.

we have exactly the reason why Biden and his political allies cannot ever take charge of American security.

Well, the republicans have done such an exemplary job here. If only party affiliation were any indication of success in this category. I wish it were that simple.

This article conflates the administration's justification for war-- which was sold to the public-- with "the mission in Iraq." The article represents an attempt to retreat back to firmer ground now that many of the pre-war claims have been debunked.

I just re-read it and I don't see that in it at all.

If only party affiliation were any indication of success in this category. I wish it were that simple.

You're missing the point. The Democratic leadership and the party in general has taken an increasingly irresponsible position on the war. The point of the Captain's post is that while one side is willing to fight it and understands what we're doing, while the other side doesn't even understand what the goals are, in this war, or apparently, in wars in general.

BTW, Glenn Reynolds has been following a theme of how Iraq is the "reverse vietnam" that I've found interesting.

Why? Well... you used to post a lot about the war, it's righteousness, and the progress which was being made. I just think that there is less of this than there used to be. And I see it as a sign that you're LESS confident than you used to be... Which of course I'D say is a very sound development...

As for "understanding what you're doing".......... I don't think Bush understood. And I don't think Rumsfeld did. They both THOUGHT they understood, though... as when Bush predicted that the Iraqis would welcome US troops with open arms, and when he thought the main part of the job was done three weeks after the invasion started.

Did he understand? Hardly.....

Indeed there is less of it than there used to be. Take it as a sign that I think things are going well and I feel like there's nothing left to argue about Also take it as a sign that I'm generally more fed up with politics than I've been.

Plus, there's genuinely not much to say nowadays. Democrats are trying to hurt the country for partisan political gain^[1] (which is nothing new) by trying to turn Iraq into the "Vietnam" it's not, and the government is growing and spending too much, even under Republican leadership. The economy seems to be doing very well though. That's about all I can think of that's going on worth mentioning that I haven't already posted on lately.

Footnotes:
[1]: and most agree with me on that, according to this survey

Oh, forgot to respond to this part of your comment:

Did he understand? Hardly.....

My comment about understanding was clearly about an understanding of our goals, purposes, and the importance of winning, not, as you imply, about having an uncanny ability to conduct every stage in fighting that war completely right.

Well... he certainly hasn't got THAT ability. That much is for sure... And, from my perspective he hasn't got that many other abilities either, and certainly not the ability to pull through with the goals that he's set for himself and America with respect to the ongoing "war" in Iraq.

As for whether or not it's a war, I don't think it really is. It's a military conflict, but it's not a war. War is more of a life and death situation, I think, while the Iraq "war" really has seemed more like a convenience from the very beginning. In other words, you attacked Iraq, not because you HAD to, but because you wanted to, or because you felt like it. And, in my opinion, that's why the public now is turning against Bush, because the real and horrible non-necessity of the whole "war" is starting to dawn on them...